The aerodynamics of trains passing through wind barriers with different forms of damage under crosswind conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aerodynamic safety of trains may be greatly threatened when encountering wind barriers with unexpected damage under strong wind conditions. A validated numerical method was utilized to explore the aerodynamic impact of various forms of wind barrier damage on the aerodynamic performance of a travelling train. The relationships between the aerodynamic parameters and the varying damage forms and wind conditions were investigated. Results indicate that bilateral damage has a more pronounced aerodynamic impact on both the train and wind barrier compared to unilateral damage, posing a greater risk to the operational safety of the train. While the damage length has minimal impact on aerodynamic loads on the wind barrier, it significantly affects the train. Specifically, the maximum peaks and amplitudes of the side force and overturning moment of the train head exhibit an upward trend as the damage length increases, followed by a decrease once the damage length surpasses the length of the train, which was determined as the most unfavourable length of damage. Furthermore, the peaks and amplitudes of the train aerodynamic forces show a linear increase with the wind speed, while the maximum pressure peak and amplitude on the wind barrier also rise at an escalating rate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".